"and my understanding is the few that have tried the sovreign citizen stance in court do not understand the law or correct syntax and usually purger themselves."

Its my understanding that the 'sovereign citizen' argument is useless idiocy based on a series of fallacious assumptions that have no relevance to the law or the world that actual people live in...and has a near perfect record of failure in the courts. Its not 'syntax'. Its an argument that simple doesn't work nor make the slightest sense.

There's no 'secret status' that magically makes people exempt from all law. There never has been. Declaring yourself a 'sovereign citizen' has no more legal relevance than insisting you're Santa Claus. The law applies just the same either way.

Quoting: J 34311994

you need to do more homework.looks like the shills are up for the day.

"and my understanding is the few that have tried the sovreign citizen stance in court do not understand the law or correct syntax and usually purger themselves."

Its my understanding that the 'sovereign citizen' argument is useless idiocy based on a series of fallacious assumptions that have no relevance to the law or the world that actual people live in...and has a near perfect record of failure in the courts. Its not 'syntax'. Its an argument that simple doesn't work nor make the slightest sense.

There's no 'secret status' that magically makes people exempt from all law. There never has been. Declaring yourself a 'sovereign citizen' has no more legal relevance than insisting you're Santa Claus. The law applies just the same either way.

Quoting: J 34311994

And if you read what i wrote correctly-i did not say its as simple as declaring yourself anything in court.Its about using the correct syntax and not being tricked into purgering because of not understanding noth syntax and maritime law.

It explains how corporations that pose as a government, are actually not government (impersonating a government official carries a 2 year jail term btw.) And that this (for profit) corporation uses names similar to the dejure government to get people confused and accepting of them. This corporation engages in contract law with your strawman - and uses any number of hidden methods to extract your 'implied consent.'

They just really hate it when people exercise their right to 'not consent' & attempt to live a peaceful existence.

There is a bit of information you need to learn though, as much of the corporation's procedures get you entangled under their implied consent.

"But they've been violating the black letter law of the Constitution for over 150 years. The federal government in its current state is entirely unlawful and has no lawful or legal authority, beyond force."

Says who?

This is the part of the 'sovereign citizen' movement I never understood. They literally just make bizarro nonsense 'legal' principles up whole...citing only themselves. That the federa government invents a 'paper' version that has nothing to do with you. Yet when pressed to back this bullshyte up with *actual law*, they have none. Its just them, making up their story as they go along.

The law simply doesn't say what they claim it does. The imaginary 'requirements' that they claim must be met don't actually exist. The court has to 'trick' you into acknowledging its authority before it can rule over you? Um, nope. There is no such requirement. Jurisdiction is established geographically. And there are no 'paper' people. The imaginary requirement simply doesn't exist.

And when they actually try and quote law, 99 times out of 100, they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Take the 'Organic Act of 1871' that supposedly reduced the nation and all of its people to corporations. The law is also known as the 'Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia'. It was a municipal consolidation of two cities: Georgetown and Washington into one municipality. That's it. Here it is in its entirety:

All the inane babble about it being the 'End of America' is just made up nonsense from someone who has never read the Act and doesn't have the slightest clue what it actually says.

For those of you serious about learning what's 'actually' happening, I'd suggest two things. *Always* ask 'according to who?' when you hear about some super secret loophole that sounds too good to be true. And then demand evidence to back it up. Not just the name of a particular act, but the *actual* text, the *actual* court rulings.

You'll find almost invariably, the person sharing the 'miraculous loophole' is just apeing what they've been told to think....and can't back it up.

There's no 'secret status' that magically makes people exempt from all law.

Quoting: J 34311994

yes there is.

all countries observe diplomatic immunity statusof it's reps

also being Muslim exempts you from Obamacare.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34303862

What most people refer to as 'law' is not law. A law is something you are obligated to follow. Breaking Common Law, for example, would be rape, murder etc. There is an obligation under Common Law not to bring harm to others.

Most of these 'Acts' referred to as laws are not. They are statutes/legal that a human being is not obligated to consent to. They most certainly do not want you knowing this however! -lol

The Courts are largely corrupt - but many people have gotten their knowledge to work for them!

"And if you read what i wrote correctly-i did not say its as simple as declaring yourself anything in court.Its about using the correct syntax and not being tricked into purgering because of not understanding noth syntax and maritime law."

Nope. The entire basis of your argument is nonsense. There is no super secret status that has to be articulated in *just* the right way that magically makes you immune to all law. Its not syntax. Its that your argument is a baseless fallacy.

There's no requirement that the courts must first 'trick you' before they can exert authority. You made that up. They have authority based on geography. If you're in Maryland, the laws of Maryland apply to you. There is no 'paper person' involved. Its just you.

And the maritime law argument is empty noise. The application of law has nothing to do with maritime law. But the State, Federal and local laws passed by the various legislatures and executives respectively. Not only is your premise useless flotsam, its completely unnecessary.

The 'sovereign citizen' movement is based in series of profound fallacies about our law, almost always just made up by the 'sovereign citizen' himself. And has no relevance to the real world nor the actual law.

Which is why the record of the sovereign citizen movement in the actual courts, under actual law....is essentially perfect failure.

Funny how the naysayers describe it as almost always failing, what do they think of the cases that don't fail?

I think it does attract charlatans and people who just want to escape penalty for causing injury to living souls or their property, some of the alleged 'wins' people put up on youtube aren't actually 'wins', it's sorta a combo of bullying and chutpah rather than they got it right. I can see why the judiciary would be concerned and in some cases that's appropriate.

"But they've been violating the black letter law of the Constitution for over 150 years. The federal government in its current state is entirely unlawful and has no lawful or legal authority, beyond force."

Says who?

This is the part of the 'sovereign citizen' movement I never understood. They literally just make bizarro nonsense 'legal' principles up whole...citing only themselves. That the federa government invents a 'paper' version that has nothing to do with you. Yet when pressed to back this bullshyte up with *actual law*, they have none. Its just them, making up their story as they go along.

The law simply doesn't say what they claim it does. The imaginary 'requirements' that they claim must be met don't actually exist. The court has to 'trick' you into acknowledging its authority before it can rule over you? Um, nope. There is no such requirement. Jurisdiction is established geographically. And there are no 'paper' people. The imaginary requirement simply doesn't exist.

And when they actually try and quote law, 99 times out of 100, they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Take the 'Organic Act of 1871' that supposedly reduced the nation and all of its people to corporations. The law is also known as the 'Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia'. It was a municipal consolidation of two cities: Georgetown and Washington into one municipality. That's it. Here it is in its entirety:

All the inane babble about it being the 'End of America' is just made up nonsense from someone who has never read the Act and doesn't have the slightest clue what it actually says.

For those of you serious about learning what's 'actually' happening, I'd suggest two things. *Always* ask 'according to who?' when you hear about some super secret loophole that sounds too good to be true. And then demand evidence to back it up. Not just the name of a particular act, but the *actual* text, the *actual* court rulings.

You'll find almost invariably, the person sharing the 'miraculous loophole' is just apeing what they've been told to think....and can't back it up.

Quoting: J 34311994

what a heap of legalese crap you just spouted-those LAWS as you call them arent even wirtten correctly-and neither does the site you linked understand correct syntax.

Its feasible, i heard of someone who got recognize as such, but the troubles and hassle of living as a sovereign being is immense, you need to be devoted to the idea, fully.

No more social security number, that means no more conventional jobs so no more taxes even though the government will sue you for not paying them, no drivers permit so no new cars and no insurances, no bank accounts so no mortgage to buy a house, though thats more a blessing once you understand how it works. No matter how much education you have, no matter how many diplomas you got, they will drag you to the mud and make sure you never practice in your field ever again.

Only a handful of people are successful in getting their freedom back. That means the authorities will have a lot of attention to give you and make your life a living hell.

Imagine minding your business, driving from the supermarket in your old beat up car with no plates. The cops stop you. They ask for your papers, you aint got any. They cuff you and put you in a cell. On top of the astronomical fine you'll get, you'll probably end up being evaluated for mental stability after trying to explain why their "laws" dont apply to you and that as a free and natural person, you can do pretty much as you please as long as it doesn't impede on the universal rights of others. They'll laugh and throw the key out. They cant and wont understand.

Once you go down that path, every damn conversation is a fucking battle. More likely lost in advance.

My tip. Live your life as free of material possessions as possible and move around, a lot. Make your own adventure. We may be slaves, but last time i checked, we choose to put the shackles on and restrict our lives. A moving target is more hard to kill than a stationary one.

"What most people refer to as 'law' is not law. A law is something you are obligated to follow. Breaking Common Law, for example, would be rape, murder etc. There is an obligation under Common Law not to bring harm to others.

Most of these 'Acts' referred to as laws are not. They are statutes/legal that a human being is not obligated to consent to. They most certainly do not want you knowing this however! "

Again, says who? Who says that the Acts referred to as law are not?

That would be you...citing you. And I hate to break this to you, but the law doesn't change just because you *say* it has no authority over you. You citing yourself is essentially meaningless. Whether you agree or disagree with a given law is meaningless. You don't get to decide which laws are valid and which not.

We do. And by 'we', I mean the people through their elected representatives. Not you, typing on an online chat board.

"Its feasible, i heard of someone who got recognize as such, but the troubles and hassle of living as a sovereign being is immense, you need to be devoted to the idea, fully."

Oh, plenty of people have 'heard' of someone who actually made this nonsense pseudo-legal babble called the 'sovereign citizen' movement work. Until you ask for their name. Then suddenly its a friend of a friend who prefers to remain anonymous. The harder you press, the more you realize that this imaginary 'someone' has all the reality of the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness monster.

For *actual* people with *actual* names, the entire legal basis for the sovereign citizen movement is worthless....as it doesn't actually exist. If, for example, you insist that you don't have to pay taxes because the federal government can only bill the 'paper you', you go to jail. As there is no paper you, and the law has no such limitations.

Making up nonsense pseudo-legal gibberish doesn't change anything. Making up non-existent 'requirements' that the government has to meet before it can apply the law doesn't mean a thing. Both the gibberish and the made up requirements are meaningless and irrelevant in the real world.

"What most people refer to as 'law' is not law. A law is something you are obligated to follow. Breaking Common Law, for example, would be rape, murder etc. There is an obligation under Common Law not to bring harm to others.

Most of these 'Acts' referred to as laws are not. They are statutes/legal that a human being is not obligated to consent to. They most certainly do not want you knowing this however! "

Again, says who? Who says that the Acts referred to as law are not?

That would be you...citing you. And I hate to break this to you, but the law doesn't change just because you *say* it has no authority over you. You citing yourself is essentially meaningless. Whether you agree or disagree with a given law is meaningless. You don't get to decide which laws are valid and which not.

We do. And by 'we', I mean the people through their elected representatives. Not you, typing on an online chat board.

Quoting: J 34311994

research more.says who? you?You can say says who? and i can say who are you to say-you need to research more.now piss off.

"Its feasible, i heard of someone who got recognize as such, but the troubles and hassle of living as a sovereign being is immense, you need to be devoted to the idea, fully."

Oh, plenty of people have 'heard' of someone who actually made this nonsense pseudo-legal babble called the 'sovereign citizen' movement work. Until you ask for their name. Then suddenly its a friend of a friend who prefers to remain anonymous. The harder you press, the more you realize that this imaginary 'someone' has all the reality of the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness monster.

For *actual* people with *actual* names, the entire legal basis for the sovereign citizen movement is worthless....as it doesn't actually exist. If, for example, you insist that you don't have to pay taxes because the federal government can only bill the 'paper you', you go to jail. As there is no paper you, and the law has no such limitations.

Making up nonsense pseudo-legal gibberish doesn't change anything. Making up non-existent 'requirements' that the government has to meet before it can apply the law doesn't mean a thing. Both the gibberish and the made up requirements are meaningless and irrelevant in the real world.

"what a heap of legalese crap you just spouted-those LAWS as you call them arent even wirtten correctly-and neither does the site you linked understand correct syntax."

They aren't written correctly according to who?

Once again, its you citing yourself. Which is meaningless. You don't define which laws are 'correct' and which aren't. You don't decide which laws apply to you and which don't. There is no super secret syntax that magically makes all laws disappear.

As the limitations you've imagined don't exist. The 'paper you' nonsense doesn't exist. Your entire basis of argument is a useless and unnecessary fallacy that has no relevance to the law or impact in the real world.

"What most people refer to as 'law' is not law. A law is something you are obligated to follow. Breaking Common Law, for example, would be rape, murder etc. There is an obligation under Common Law not to bring harm to others.

Most of these 'Acts' referred to as laws are not. They are statutes/legal that a human being is not obligated to consent to. They most certainly do not want you knowing this however! "

Again, says who? Who says that the Acts referred to as law are not?

That would be you...citing you. And I hate to break this to you, but the law doesn't change just because you *say* it has no authority over you. You citing yourself is essentially meaningless. Whether you agree or disagree with a given law is meaningless. You don't get to decide which laws are valid and which not.

We do. And by 'we', I mean the people through their elected representatives. Not you, typing on an online chat board.

Quoting: J 34311994

People using sovereign arguments are forever quoting the Constitution & abiding by this document. Corporations posing as governments are forever disregarding the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't become irrelevant just because 'you' say so. In Australia, a referendum is required to alter any part of the constitution.

A corporation does not have the authority to create laws to force people to follow them, but can create contracts.

Anyhow, will say it is very obvious you are a shill. More proof that 'they' are concerned about this info getting out - lol.

"what a heap of legalese crap you just spouted-those LAWS as you call them arent even wirtten correctly-and neither does the site you linked understand correct syntax."

They aren't written correctly according to who?

Once again, its you citing yourself. Which is meaningless. You don't define which laws are 'correct' and which aren't. You don't decide which laws apply to you and which don't. There is no super secret syntax that magically makes all laws disappear.

As the limitations you've imagined don't exist. The 'paper you' nonsense doesn't exist. Your entire basis of argument is a useless and unnecessary fallacy that has no relevance to the law or impact in the real world.

Quoting: J 34311994

learn Parse Syntax.and read what i wrote correctly before you answer again.run along.

And by 'shill', does that mean anyone who doesn't accept these imaginary requirements and non-existent pseudo-legal principles you've made up?

The sovereign citizen movement loves its labels. But calling a tree a tea cup doesn't change anything about the tree. Nor does calling yourself a 'sovereign citizen' change a thing about your status under the law.

But don't take my word for it.....look at the essentially *perfect* record of failure of the movement in court. Clearly the law doesn't actually say what they believe it does.

And by 'shill', does that mean anyone who doesn't accept these imaginary requirements and non-existent pseudo-legal principles you've made up?

The sovereign citizen movement loves its labels. But calling a tree a tea cup doesn't change anything about the tree. Nor does calling yourself a 'sovereign citizen' change a thing about your status under the law.

But don't take my word for it.....look at the essentially *perfect* record of failure of the movement in court. Clearly the law doesn't actually say what they believe it does.

You did make it up, as no such legal requirements exist. No such limitations exist. There are no 'paper people'. Nor do the courts have to 'trick you' in order to exert authority over you. As the essentially perfect record of failure of such arguments in court establish rather convincingly.

Clearly what you've told to think doesn't have much use in the real world.

Well our birth certificates do have serial numbers, making them some sort of bonds, own by our respective countries, which are listed on the markets as corporations. Each bond has a "quote" which reflects your value to the company. How much you are worth (education and revenue) and how much debt you can carry and more importantly can repay (credit score).

If you uneducated, cant hold a job and have a mountain of debt, youre a bad investment, forget loans and mortgages, theres no money to be made OFF you. If your educated with a great job, and pay your credit cards minimums on time, you have placements and all sort of valuable shit, then youre a gold mine and they love. They will loan you anything you want, cause your stupid enough to let them charge you interest for lending you "your" own money.

How do you people think the banking system really works?

You are nothing but a banking note. Some are pennies, others are hundred dollar bills. All they care is how much they can make out of you. And our respective companies, err i mean countries, only care how much you can contribute and add value to the whole. If you're sucking value out of the company, they dont like you so much and they'll do anything to push you away, in a dark corner, so you bother anyone anymore. But if you rise out of the darkness and make something of yourself, they'll take you back.

You did make it up, as no such legal requirements exist. No such limitations exist. There are no 'paper people'. Nor do the courts have to 'trick you' in order to exert authority over you. As the essentially perfect record of failure of such arguments in court establish rather convincingly.

Clearly what you've told to think doesn't have much use in the real world.

I already knew that. I have researched the sovereign citizen movements legal arguments. Their laughably nonsense. They literally just make up pseudo-legal babble up, and imagine limitations and requirements for the courts and the law that don't actually exist.

I've even given you explicit examples from this very thread: the bizarre claims regarding the Organic Act of 1871. It simply didn't say what your ilk claimed it did.

And so it is with virtually every claim you make. Which is why when pressed to back these claims up, you can't.

"Sovereign Citizens" is a term that applies to *ALL* Americans. However, your government is lying to you. YOU are a sovereign citizen. The ones they seek to discredit and destroy are the ones who know what it means. Here is what it means:

There is "The Law", known as common law or Constitutional Law. Then, there is everthing else. Its fake law. It looks like law but its not law. Its "Color of Law". You have to obey it because you signed something or you just think you have to obey it.

The government doesn't like people that know they don't have to follow fake law or color of law. THESE are called "sovereign citizens".

We are the ones that keep the government in check. They hate us because we know the government is not REALLY our government but nothing but a hull of what it should be.

They'll demonize us as much as they can, but, in the end, they run out of money. We win, regardless of what they do. They are empty. They are lies.

Statutes, codes, ordinanced, etc, are rules created by men by concent of those who wish to obey them and then you have been coerced into believing you have to obey them too. Its quite the scam game and they've perfected it since The Act of 1871.

You did make it up, as no such legal requirements exist. No such limitations exist. There are no 'paper people'. Nor do the courts have to 'trick you' in order to exert authority over you. As the essentially perfect record of failure of such arguments in court establish rather convincingly.

Clearly what you've told to think doesn't have much use in the real world.